Quote:
Originally Posted by BadNewsRef
Not to get in between friends  but I think JRut's point might be that a clear path doesn't have any bearing on our judgement. For instance:
A1 has a fast break, around 25' from the basket B1 grabs A1 around the waist from behind. In deciding whether or not to assess an IF on B1 does it matter whether or not Team B had another defender in between A1 and the basket? Or say B1 makes a half play on the ball and fouls A1. If there is no other defender between A1 and basket are we now going to call a IF because of the clear path? |
You are exactly right based on my position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Probably not on that play, but Rut said it's "irrelevant," and that's just not correct. It may not be relevant on a particular play, but it's certainly a criteria based on the "obvious advantage" portion of the rule.
I'm done with it, though.
|
It is irrelevant to what the rule says. There is nothing in the NCAA rule that gives us any more likely judgment to call an intentional foul because of the presence or absence of a "clear path." Or I cannot even remember a single interpretation that says we should call anything differently based on who is in front of the ball handler to the basket. That is why I made that statement in the first place, you do not have agree with me at all. If you do not agree that is OK, but that alone does not create an obvious advantage in my opinion as you seem to want to suggest no matter how many times you say it. You should call an intentional foul based on the actions of the fouler, not if a ball handler has a certain path or absent of a certain path. Could such a foul where there is a clear path be called an intentional foul? Of course it could, but not because of the way you are suggesting. Stop being such a sensitive baby, we just do not agree on what an obvious advantage is based on that criteria. It is a basic disagreement and no rules language supports your position as you are suggesting. That is all I am saying.
Peace